Two things I should say from the outset. First, I am a Christian. Second, I did not like the film Religulous. I recently told this to an atheist acquaintance of mine and he suggested that that reason I didn't care for this unabashedly anti-religious film was because I was "in denial of the central premise."
An interesting point. One some level, he’s right. As a Christian, there were several things I did not like about this movie. I felt both misrepresented and insulted; always a frustrating combination. However, as angry as I was as a Christian, I was absolutely livid as a film critic.
Click the Rawr! to read more.
At the Oscars, Bill Maher extolled the virtues of the documentary genre. He said that documentary filmmakers give us the truth and make us aware of the greater humanity around us. I absolutely agree with these words. Unfortunately, very little of what he said could be applied to his own film.
Perhaps the blame should be placed at Michael Moore’s feet, who has done more to redefine the documentary genre than Errol Morris, Michael Apted, and Steve James all put together. Some filmmakers choose to find a fascinating subject and, as the name of the genre would imply, document what they see. Through the course of their filming and editing, they discover that there is a larger truth in the events they have captured.
Moore, on the other hand, decided long ago that he would start with the end and work backwards. He would first start with his own opinion, treat it as the larger truth, then film and edit in such a way as to make his opinion a reality. In doing so, he guaranteed himself an audience. A film that championed his opinion would certainly attract those that agree with him. Rather than curious moviegoers drawn to an intriguing subject, Moore catered to those who simply wished to be told that they were right.
This was not to imply that Moore is a bad filmmaker. Quite the opposite. His films raise interesting questions. The frustrating thing is, he doesn’t know what to do with them. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore established that other countries have just as many guns as we have, but we have far more gun violence. He asks why, which is a complex, fascinating question. However, rather than search for the answer- if there is one- Moore chooses to blame the NRA and Charlton Heston. One gets the distinct feeling that these were his targets all along and he was going to let them have it, no matter what questions were raised during the filming.
The problem with deciding your point first and filling in the gaps later is that it doesn’t actually allow art to grow. Moore’s films have the potential to be truly exhilarating and multi-layered, if he would only get out of his own way. But, when you’ve got millions of people seeing your films, there is no incentive to change. Why mess with success?
It’s with this in mind that Bill Maher and director Larry Charles approach the incendiary topic of religion. With Maher’s success as professional provacoteur, along with the best-selling books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others, now seemed the best time to release a movie condemning faith. And, sure enough, the film did fairly well at the box office. It certainly did not achieve Moore-like success, but, considering the genre, it did okay.
The concept is a good one. We live in a country where a Presidential candidate has to prove his religious bona fides to even be considered for office. And, as we have learned from the last eight years, there are a lot of people for whom major policy issues don’t matter, as long as the President talks a lot about God. Not to mention the fact that there are people who are willing to die and kill for their religious beliefs.
Religion is something that needs a good skewering now and again to remind us that, though it may have heavenly inspiration, the institution itself is run by people. Regular ol’ fallible people. And some of these people are just a little… off.
I would imagine that every religion has its share of members who fail to see the woods for the trees. These are believers whom have managed to become so legalistic, so obsessed with the minute details, that they not only miss the larger picture, but will condemn those that aren’t just like them.
These people are called “Extremists.” It is important to keep that word in mind, because we will be seeing a lot of them in Religulous. In fact, the film is almost exclusively populated with them. There is the Jewish inventor who creates devices to get around the whole “keep the Sabbath holy” thing. There is the pastor who claims himself to be the anti-Christ. The Muslim musician whose lyrics are decidedly pro-violence. The Jesus impersonator. The R&B pastor. The Holocaust denier. The dumb politician. The chapel truckers.
And on and on and on.
Now, if this were a film about religious extremism specifically, I would applaud Charles and Maher for their thoroughness. Unfortunately, the filmmakers use this motley crew as representative of religion in general. They have a serious beef with religion and point to these people as the reason why.
This was a serious problem for me, not only as a Christian, but as a film critic. If you want to make a film about a broad topic- especially if you’re choosing to come out against it- you’d better do your best to represent all aspects of it. I’m okay with a film that will eventually take a negative view of something, but, if that’s what it’s going to do, it has even more of a responsibility to show all sides. The best case is made when all the bases have been covered.
Ah, but we can’t do that, now, can we? If we were to show an intelligent, sensitive theologian or a progressive, compassionate clergyman, the audience might begin to sympathize with somebody other than Bill Maher. And, if that were to happen, they might form their own opinions on the subject, rather than simply agree with whatever the filmmaker says.
So Maher and Charles go to work, diligently digging up as many crazies as they can. Who would ever sympathize with this rich preacher who abuses the Bible to justify his lavish lifestyle? Nobody, of course. That’s the idea.
What’s particularly frustrating throughout the film is when its true potential shines through. As Maher talks to Francis Collins, a professed Christian who happens to be the head of the Human Genome Project, the conversation veers towards Collins’ intellect. Maher wonders how a man as smart as this could ever believe such strange things.
In that contradiction lies the potential for a fascinating documentary. If I were Bill Maher, I would have immediately started taking the film in another direction. It reminds me of the documentary Overnight. The filmmakers originally intended it to be a chronicle of the meteoric success of director Troy Duffy. As Duffy’s Hollywood enemies list started to grow, they realized that they had the potential to make a very different film; a better one. One about the fickle nature of Hollywood and the malignant self-destruction of narcissism. When Duffy started to head south, they could have packed it in or, worse yet, insisted on sticking to their original concept. But, instead, they saw an opportunity to do something different.
Unfortunately, Larry Charles and Bill Maher stuck to their guns. They were going to make their point no matter what. If it meant they had to interview all the religious crazies in the world, they would do it. If it meant avoiding more complex questions, so be it.
And if they had to resort to dirty tricks to make their point, then that’s what they would do.
It’s been widely acknowledged that Michael Moore engages in some creative editing to make his points. Charles does the same. The problem is that Moore is exceptionally good at it, in that it’s sometimes difficult to see the seams. In Religulous, we get editing that’s too sloppy to fool anybody.
There are several interviews in which Maher is debating back and forth with a subject. Then, suddenly, after Maher makes what he believes to be a strong point, we get a shot of the subject just sitting there, silent. It seems abrupt and, indeed, it is. Because it has been edited in such a way to look as though Maher has rendered the subject speechless with his arguing prowess. My guess is that the subject responded, but Maher and Charles weren't impressed. Or, perhaps a bit more scurrilous, they were so impressed that they decided that this simply couldn't be in their film, for fear that somebody somewhere might actually start to show a bit of sympathy for somebody other than Maher.
This is bad enough, but perhaps more frustrating for me is the practice of intercutting interview footage with Maher commenting to the camera afterwards. This way, we get Maher's take on the things the subject has said, but in a nice safe place, where the subject cannot respond. This is a cheap shot, but no cheaper than when Charles throws subtitles on the screen during the interview in order to make the subject look silly. If the subject gets a fact wrong, there's the subtitle to let us know.
I find myself wondering why Maher didn't just correct the subject on the spot. Indeed, it would have made for great footage; a would-be expert sticking his foot in his mouth. Unless, of course, Maher himself didn't know that the subject was wrong and only discovered this after.
I don't understand why so many modern documentary filmmakers have chosen to put their films together this way. The pro-Intelligent Design film Expelled does the exact same thing, with too-clever asides and winking ironies. When filmmakers realize that this smug, arrogant style of moviemaking only serves to alienate those that don't already agree with them, the better we'll all be.
These films aren't interested in dialogue. As much lip service as they may pay to the idea of trying to open people's eyes, they ultimately wind up just affirming the opinions of those who already wholeheartedly agree. They don't care about changing your mind, and they certainly don't care about seeking a larger truth. Rather, they only seek to express their author's opinion.
My acquaintance may have a point about my reaction to Religulous. Perhaps I give more weight to the filmmaking flaws because I don't agree with the central premise. But, what he's failing to see is that, if this were a better film- more truthful and less proselytizing- I might have been more willing to entertain said premise. I was very much in favor of the Iraq War until I saw The Fog of War, a documentary that refused to characterize Robert McNamara as a monster and, as such, gave weight to the anti-war philosophies that he had come to adopt. The even-handed approach to this controversial subject affected me much more than any one-sided brow beating ever could have.
So, yes, maybe due to my beliefs (both religious and cinematic), I am unwilling to cut the film much slack. But only somebody blinded by allegiance to the premise of the film could ignore the deep filmmaking flaws and questionable approach. That it might be better than I think is a far cry from being good.
RAWR(for more)
